CASTILLO-PEREZ
27 I. & N. Dec. 664 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of two or more convictions for driving under the influence during the relevant statutory period establishes a rebuttable presumption that an alien lacks good moral character under INA § 101(f), thereby presumptively making them ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b).
Facts:
- Castillo-Perez, a native and national of Mexico, lived in the United States without admission or parole since 1997.
- He is married, has three U.S.-citizen children, and works as a mason for a construction company.
- On two separate occasions in 2001, and again in 2006, Castillo-Perez was arrested for assault and battery of his wife.
- In 2004, Castillo-Perez was charged with public drunkenness, and in 2005, he was convicted of negligent driving.
- Castillo-Perez was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) in 2010 and again in 2012.
- Castillo-Perez admitted that his excessive consumption of alcohol was a major factor in each of his criminal episodes.
- After his last DUI conviction, Castillo-Perez stopped drinking, completed an alcohol-safety program, and regularly attends Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
Procedural Posture:
- In February 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against Castillo-Perez.
- Castillo-Perez conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal.
- In 2016, an immigration judge (IJ) granted Castillo-Perez's application for cancellation of removal, finding he had shown good moral character.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated the immigration judge's decision, finding Castillo-Perez, as the appellee, had failed to establish exceptional hardship and had not demonstrated good moral character, and ordered him removed to Mexico. DHS was the appellant.
- Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker directed the BIA to refer Castillo-Perez's case to the Attorney General for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence of two or more convictions for driving under the influence during the statutory period for establishing good moral character create a rebuttable presumption that an alien lacks good moral character, thus rendering them ineligible for cancellation of removal?
Opinions:
Majority - Attorney General
Yes, evidence of two or more convictions for driving under the influence during the relevant period establishes a rebuttable presumption that an alien lacked good moral character, thus making them presumptively ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Attorney General affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' order vacating the immigration judge's decision to grant cancellation of removal. The INA's 'good moral character' standard, based on 'generally accepted moral conventions' of the community, is directly contradicted by criminal activity. Driving under the influence (DUI) is universally criminalized, reflecting a national consensus against such dangerous conduct, and multiple DUI convictions demonstrate a repeated failure to meet these community standards, not merely a 'single lapse.' Although INA § 101(f) lists specific reasons for lacking good moral character, its 'catch-all clause' allows for other grounds. Moreover, multiple DUIs are a serious negative factor in the discretionary decision to grant cancellation of removal, requiring substantial offsetting favorable evidence. The statute requires an alien to demonstrate good moral character for the entire 10-year period preceding the application. Therefore, while commendable, an alien's post-conviction rehabilitation efforts alone do not overcome the presumption that good moral character was lacking during the period that included the convictions. The Attorney General has the authority to establish such presumptions to promote uniform administration of immigration laws, citing precedents like Matter of Jean and Matter of Y-L-.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts immigration adjudications by establishing a clear and strong rebuttable presumption regarding good moral character for aliens with multiple DUI convictions. It standardizes how immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals must weigh such offenses, shifting the burden onto the alien to present substantial evidence of good moral character during the period encompassing the convictions, rather than relying solely on post-offense rehabilitation. The ruling underscores the Attorney General's authority to set precedential standards for immigration relief and reflects a policy emphasizing public safety and adherence to community moral standards as critical components of good moral character.
